3 ms·

One sacred site that was submerged due to rising sea level is the ancient city of Dwarka—-in Gujarat off Indian ocean. The remains of this 5000 year old capita

by indus 3y ago

One sacred site that was submerged due to rising sea level is the ancient city of Dwarka—-in Gujarat off Indian ocean. The remains of this 5000 year old capital of Lord Krishna—-archaeologists have found walls, artifacts, and structures off the modern Dwarka. The city holds immense mythological significance and ancient texts such as Mahabharat corroborate the existence.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> The remains of this 5000 year old capital of Lord Krishna From Wikipedia, with citations[0]: “Archaeological findings suggest the original temple Dwarkadhish Temple dedicated to Krishna was built in 200 BCE at the earliest.” Any reference to Krishna further back than that is mere legend, and considering that the name Krishna is etymologically from a language family that did not even reach India until more recently than five thousand years ago, your claim is preposterous on its face. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarka
- dagmx 3y ago
  As an Indian, the rise of Hindutva has been so damaging to history. So I appreciate people like you who provide more historical context and grounding. So much gets retconned with these apocryphal takes on how everything relates to Hinduism. So much of the rich history of the subcontinent has been reduced to religious politics. There is so much cultural erasure in the name of religious vanity. I was raised Hindu but I just can’t relate to this religious fervour
- indus 3y ago
  I’m not claiming anything—-nor an expert. Just reciting the experts[0] It is laziness to cite a Wikipedia article without doing any research. [0] https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2021/05/the-mythical-underwater-city-of-dwarka-india-is-9500-years-old/ https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2021/05/the-mythical-underwa...
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    The Wikipedia article has citations, which one can follow up on. I would say what is lazy is posting a link to “The Yucatan Times”, not exactly a reputable source on Indian archaeology, without even noticing that that article was sourced from a now-defunct article at New India Express, again not a reputable source on Indian archaeology. That source article, to judge from what was saved at Wayback Machine, does not cite a single scholar’s name or publication in making its claims. Moreover, even if the dating of human presence at the site does date back to the claimed date, your article says nothing about Krishna except the aforementioned legend.

by indus 3y ago

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

> The remains of this 5000 year old capital of Lord Krishna From Wikipedia, with citations[0]: “Archaeological findings suggest the original temple Dwarkadhish Temple dedicated to Krishna was built in 200 BCE at the earliest.” Any reference to Krishna further back than that is mere legend, and considering that the name Krishna is etymologically from a language family that did not even reach India until more recently than five thousand years ago, your claim is preposterous on its face. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarka

dagmx 3y ago
As an Indian, the rise of Hindutva has been so damaging to history. So I appreciate people like you who provide more historical context and grounding. So much gets retconned with these apocryphal takes on how everything relates to Hinduism. So much of the rich history of the subcontinent has been reduced to religious politics. There is so much cultural erasure in the name of religious vanity. I was raised Hindu but I just can’t relate to this religious fervour
indus 3y ago
I’m not claiming anything—-nor an expert. Just reciting the experts[0] It is laziness to cite a Wikipedia article without doing any research. [0] https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2021/05/the-mythical-underwater-city-of-dwarka-india-is-9500-years-old/ https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2021/05/the-mythical-underwa...
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  The Wikipedia article has citations, which one can follow up on. I would say what is lazy is posting a link to “The Yucatan Times”, not exactly a reputable source on Indian archaeology, without even noticing that that article was sourced from a now-defunct article at New India Express, again not a reputable source on Indian archaeology. That source article, to judge from what was saved at Wayback Machine, does not cite a single scholar’s name or publication in making its claims. Moreover, even if the dating of human presence at the site does date back to the claimed date, your article says nothing about Krishna except the aforementioned legend.